# Foster v. Jackson

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · November 10, 1976 · 339 So. 2d 865

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7481127

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert FOSTER v. Jeff D. JACKSON d/b/a/ Jackson Mortgage Service & Construction Company
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** November 10, 1976
- **Citations:** 339 So. 2d 865; 1976 La. App. LEXIS 4592
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Watson
- **Judges:** Domen, Domengeaux, Geaux, Guidry, Hood, Miller, Watson
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7481127

## Opinion text

WATSON, Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent for the reasons assigned by Domengeaux, J., and for the following additional reasons:
Although the evidence in the record is somewhat weak, it is sufficient—if the trial court’s considered decision is accorded the proper weight—to affirm the judgment.
For example, much of the dispute revolves around the use of masonite board to cover the ceiling of the carport and to box in the area under the eaves. The majority says that the record shows that it is a “standard practice” to use masonite board for such a purpose in constructing relatively inexpensive homes. The record does not show this.
The expert who testified said that some people use masonite board for siding. There is no unbiased testimony that mason-ite is used for carport ceilings or boxing in the eaves. In fact, the expert said:
“I don’t know what other people use, but I wouldn’t use that on nobody’s house. I wouldn’t use it on a doghouse.” (TR. 49)
*872 Apparently, the trial court accepted this testimony along with other testimony that this expert gave concerning the defects. I agree that the testimony could have been more precise, but it is the only unbiased testimony in the record. The defendant did not call an expert or contradict the plaintiff’s expert in any way except with his (the defendant’s) own statements.
Finally, there is no basis for the award of $536 for repairs. If the trial court is manifestly in error, the defendant is entitled to a complete reversal.
I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7481127. Public record. Not legal advice.